The size of our carriers are driven by how we anticipate using them. Our carriers have not had to fight a war at sea vs other ships since WW-II.DocBarrister wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 9:49 pmI wouldn’t want a 12th aircraft carrier strike force. The cost to build and operate such a strike group is prohibitive.old salt wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 9:06 pmWhen was the law changed from 12 to 11 ? We haven't had 12 in commission since the JFK retired in 2007.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 8:44 pmJust correcting the facts, as you sometimes play loose with them...I'd assumed, however, that it was an honest mistake and you'd say, oops, I got that wrong.old salt wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:02 pm...with smaller, less capable carriers, not capable of operating on the far side of the world for 9 mos at a stretch.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:45 pmnope, it's 11 not 12, and there are less expensive ways to achieve this level.
Congress threw in the towel & amended the law to 11 when it became obvious we didn't have the capability to catch up.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32731.html
We've maintained 12 carrier level tasking & it's just a matter of time until...
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/12/no-mar ... of-overuse
You want to make the argument that we really need 15, no sweat...but "law" ain't that.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/8062
https://midwesterncitizen.com/2021/12/t ... t-century/
https://themaritimepost.com/2021/07/vid ... ships/amp/
There is also the often-stated risk of putting too many eggs into too few baskets. An aircraft carrier strike force is such a massive, concentrated investment of personnel and resources that losing even one such group would be a national military catastrophe.
I would rather spend the same amount of money and personnel in building and operating more guided missile cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, as well as more air defense systems.
If we want more aircraft carriers, let’s build more amphibious ships … light aircraft carriers in all but name.
It’s pretty clear now that China’s military can overwhelm the air defenses of any aircraft carrier strike group. The PLA and PLA Navy has lots of missiles. Part of the U.S. strategy should be increasing the number of potential targets and distributing the risk among a larger number of smaller naval assets.
This isn’t my idea. In military parlance, it might be called a strategy of a more broadly distributed fleet architecture.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf
A larger number of smaller ships and other military platforms rather than a smaller number of large ships and other military assets.
DocBarrister
We've developed them as nuc "super carriers" that are essentially a mobile airfield that hosts the equivalent of an Air Force strike fighter wing.
We design them to operate anywhere on the globe, with the ability to stand off the coast & pound an enemy country.
They carry the strike aircraft & the support aircraft (tankers, jammers, radar intercept control aircraft) necessary to operate indefinitely, when resupplied by logistics ships. We have not had to operate them where they are vulnerable & avoid doing so.
There's always a debate to build more, smaller carriers. We do maintain 9 "lightning carriers" -- large deck amphibs capable of operating the F-35B STOVL aircraft, similar to the Brits new carriers. 2 of them, the new America & Tripoli, have their well decks replaced by a hangar deck to carry more F-35's.
We live in hope of the day when we won't need 3 carriers deployed (to Europe, WestPac, & the Middle East.)
We're only able to continuously cover 2 of 3.